Security for all MPs

The above is not very clear.
If someone does not understand what I have written I will try and help.

Basically speaking, do we think that all MPs should have the same level of security?

fwiw, I dont know how it all works at the moment.

I started a similar thread the other day, didn’t get a lot of hits

The problem is that there are literally hundreds of threats made every day and there is no way of knowing which might be serious. Apparently, research has shown that most online abuse is made by women. But we know that action is mostly taken by men. Whether any of this is relevant I don't know.

All MPs deserve to be safe and to feel safe, as does everyone who works face to face with the pubic. How that can be achieved I don't know, but what I want to see is much more accountability over what is posted, so that the person posting hate or death threats can easily be identified and dealt with. If a society is creating monsters who can threaten others anonymously then that is the problem that needs to be addressed. Surely with AI it should be easier to trace these hateful people and deal with them. If they know they can be identified then the death threats will stop.

GrannyGravy13

I started a similar thread the other day, didn’t get a lot of hits

Oh. Sorry.
I wouldnt have seen it myself as I have barely been on here the last few days.

I did look on N&P but couldnt see a similar one.

Which thread please did you start?

Nigel Farage turned down taxpayer-funded security which reportedly included a trained driver, car, and bodyguard last year because he deemed it “inadequate”.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-reform-security-ann-widdecombe-death-b3014167.html

Institute of Government explainer about MPs' security

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/mps-security

The issue appears to be that Farage operates differently to other constituency MPs and relishes being controversial, his whole career has been based on it, therefore he believes he is entitled to special treatment.

We have seen how he is always flanked by at least two or three burly men - although that didn’t stop him being milkshaked - so there’s a limit to what can be offered and how effective it would be.

If that milkshake had been acid, his bodyguards wouldn’t have stopped it. If someone had wanted to take a pot shot at him from a roof in Haytor as he performed his wreath laying, his bodyguards would not have been able to stop it. The recent fuss about his daughter, journalists knocking on the door of one of his Kent properties, an address where he is registered as a company director and registered to vote, had no gates, nothing by a security camera as far as I could see.

Ann Widdecombe had a name plate at the end of her drive. She made no secret of where she lived. Her friend, broadcaster Iain Dale, speaking on Newsnight last Friday said she would have the regarded extra security as “stuff and nonsense”.

I suspect what Farage really wants is a permanent Trump-style secret-service detail paid for by the taxpayer but … most of his time is spent on his private money-making activities. As an MP he does very little so where does one draw the line about what he should be afforded?

I’ve not seen another thread, I do think security for MPs warrants a thread of its own.

ALL serving MPs are already offered paid security via our government, at the same baseline level.

However some maybe offered further security based on criteria, Mr shingle explain this better than I can.

“ While every serving MP receives a baseline level of protection and support, specific allocations differ based on the following:Routine Security: Every MP is offered baseline measures and a dedicated, named police contact under the national Operation Bridger program. This includes security briefings, advice, and standardized physical upgrades to their homes and constituency offices.Enhanced Security: MPs facing higher or more specific threat levels receive elevated measures, which can include panic alarms, active patrols, and manned guarding at public events.Close Protection: Only a select few MPs (such as the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, and certain senior Cabinet members) are automatically granted permanent close protection (e.g., dedicated bodyguards, official cars, and drivers). An individual MP may have their security elevated to this level only if intelligence indicates an exceptional, severe risk.”

I’m not sure that there is an evidence to support the suggestion that MPs who are outspoken are more likely to be targeted, because I think it only takes one violent nutcase with a grudge against somebody for them to be attacked. Neither Jo Cox or David Amess were the best known, or controversial MPs, for example. Ann Widecombe hadn’t been an MP for a number of years, and although she was still active she had no political power. It’s hard to see how to allocate security support to ensure every MP is protected adequately at all times, let alone former politicians. Sorry, I know that’s not much help.

fancythat

GrannyGravy13

I started a similar thread the other day, didn’t get a lot of hits

Oh. Sorry.
I wouldnt have seen it myself as I have barely been on here the last few days.

I did look on N&P but couldnt see a similar one.

Which thread please did you start?

Past and present MP’s security

I was surprised that there was not a lot of interest, but now the anti-terrorist police are involved, hopefully more posters will have an opinion 👍

Personally, and again this is my opinion, Farage does not warrant any further public funded security than any other MP.

But as my other post makes most abundantly clear, if it’s considered any MP is at more risk than other, they will be considered for further security.

Farage has never been denied security and to pretend he has is disingenuous at best.

How on earth would additional security prevent a plane crash, testicular cancer and a wheel coming of his car?

Casdon

I’m not sure that there is an evidence to support the suggestion that MPs who are outspoken are more likely to be targeted, because I think it only takes one violent nutcase with a grudge against somebody for them to be attacked. Neither Jo Cox or David Amess were the best known, or controversial MPs, for example. Ann Widecombe hadn’t been an MP for a number of years, and although she was still active she had no political power. It’s hard to see how to allocate security support to ensure every MP is protected adequately at all times, let alone former politicians. Sorry, I know that’s not much help.

It’s not much help, but it is valid and true.

GrannyGravy13

I started a similar thread the other day, didn’t get a lot of hits

Sorry, I remember your post now and I thought I’d commented?

Heat really is addling my brain!

I feel that if someone like Ann Widdecombe can be murdered then anyone can. At 78 and no longer an MP she was hardly a driving force in today's politics. If the police find that her murder was politically motivated then steps should be taken for the protection of Ministers and MP's.

Sarnia

I feel that if someone like Ann Widdecombe can be murdered then anyone can. At 78 and no longer an MP she was hardly a driving force in today's politics. If the police find that her murder was politically motivated then steps should be taken for the protection of Ministers and MP's.

They all have access to publicly funded security now.

Actually, if we wish to analyse this more closely, the public organisations/services most likely to be physically harmed/attacked are NHS staff and the police.

Even jobcentre staff are at risk of physical attacks. In my 14 years of working in Essex, in Essex alone we had a security guard (ironically) stabbed to death, and bottles of acid brought into various jobcentres and many many other threats.

We all underwent “security” training, how to mitigate acid attacks, how to remove all traces of ourselves working within a jobcentre (not wearing passes et when popping out for lunch etc).

Very sadly and alarmingly this is the world in which we now live and it certainly isn’t helped by some of the co language used by very well known public figures like Trump.

It’s also not “new”, I remember only too well the horrific death of Lee Rigby.

We all need to be vigilant and those in public service more so.

Cossy

I’ve not seen another thread, I do think security for MPs warrants a thread of its own.

ALL serving MPs are already offered paid security via our government, at the same baseline level.

However some maybe offered further security based on criteria, Mr shingle explain this better than I can.

“ While every serving MP receives a baseline level of protection and support, specific allocations differ based on the following:Routine Security: Every MP is offered baseline measures and a dedicated, named police contact under the national Operation Bridger program. This includes security briefings, advice, and standardized physical upgrades to their homes and constituency offices.Enhanced Security: MPs facing higher or more specific threat levels receive elevated measures, which can include panic alarms, active patrols, and manned guarding at public events.Close Protection: Only a select few MPs (such as the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, and certain senior Cabinet members) are automatically granted permanent close protection (e.g., dedicated bodyguards, official cars, and drivers). An individual MP may have their security elevated to this level only if intelligence indicates an exceptional, severe risk.”

Thank you for that.

We can only hope that the MPs who need higher protection levels are granted it.

Sadly, I wouldnt have thought Ann Widdecombe would have been eligible for much.
Not sure how much she would have wanted anyway.

I found the post title somewhat confusing. I think I'd be less confused if the post title was written clearly in the posters own words rather than quoting another poster from a different thread to talk about what that other poster said in the other thread context. But that's just me being confused I guess.

Anne Widdicombe has not been a UK MP since 2010 16 years ago. Are we being invited to consider UK state funded security measures for every serving UK MP- or everyone that has ever served as an MP once they have left office until the day they die? That surely would be unaffordable, logistically problematic and not viable? How would it be funded?

All serving MPs do currently have state funded security and even with the tightest, highest level security safety cannot be guaranteed. We only have to look at attempts on Trump's life as an example and I doubt there is any politician in the world with as much secret security protection as Trump.

Looking at the current level of serving MP state funded security and possible improvements- I understand Shabana Mahmoud has instigated a review?

I don't think "outspoken" serving MPs merit a higher level of security necessarily. What is the threshold for "outspoken"? What is an acceptable versus unacceptable level of being "outspoken"?

MPs serve the public and the public should be able to expect them to speak and bah as mature, responsible adults. They should know and have the skills to maintain appropriate communications orally and on line. Perhaps guidelines on 'appropriate communications in political discourse' might assist those who are by nature more aggressive, pugnacious and argumentative? Zia Yusef springs to mind as someone in that context but he's not a serving MP.

UK Political discourse in my view has become more aggressive and divided, driven by contentious issues, e.g. (not exhaustive!) immigration, climate change and 'culture wars'. Increasingly aggressive and divisive rhetoric in politics and social media has normalised toxic debate and hostility towards public figures. AW was a prominent public figure for example but not a serving MP.

We'd be better trying to find a way for serving politicians to find a way to debate such contentious issues without aggressive rhetoric in my view.

On Farage turning down state funded security, claiming it was "inadequate' seems to be to be the behaviour of someone self entitled, divisive, seeking self publicity rather misguided ( why not simply top up to desired levels?) and self sabotaging. Perhaps attitudes like that contribute to the political discourse paradigm shift?

bah = behave

I googled "which Uk jobs have the highest murder rate".

AI answer
Sex workers, taxi drivers, and police officers face the highest rates of work-related homicide in the UK.

I am surprised about taxi drivers.

Anne Widdicombe has not been a UK MP since 2010 16 years ago. Are we being invited to consider UK state funded security measures for every serving UK MP- or everyone that has ever served as an MP once they have left office until the day they die? That surely would be unaffordable, logistically problematic and not viable? How would it be funded?

I dont know. Part of the reason for this thread.

Fancythat AW wouldn’t have met the criteria, she’s not been a serving MP for many years. She was a “voluntary” member and speaker for Reform.

I believe the other thread started, which I now do recall mentioned both serving and ex-MPs security, giving them publicly funded security would cost a fortune.

Whilst this murder and that of David Ammess and Jo Cox were utterly horrific, thank goodness they are relatively rare. I agree though three murders is three too many.

LemonJam

I found the post title somewhat confusing. I think I'd be less confused if the post title was written clearly in the posters own words rather than quoting another poster from a different thread to talk about what that other poster said in the other thread context. But that's just me being confused I guess.

Anne Widdicombe has not been a UK MP since 2010 16 years ago. Are we being invited to consider UK state funded security measures for every serving UK MP- or everyone that has ever served as an MP once they have left office until the day they die? That surely would be unaffordable, logistically problematic and not viable? How would it be funded?

All serving MPs do currently have state funded security and even with the tightest, highest level security safety cannot be guaranteed. We only have to look at attempts on Trump's life as an example and I doubt there is any politician in the world with as much secret security protection as Trump.

Looking at the current level of serving MP state funded security and possible improvements- I understand Shabana Mahmoud has instigated a review?

I don't think "outspoken" serving MPs merit a higher level of security necessarily. What is the threshold for "outspoken"? What is an acceptable versus unacceptable level of being "outspoken"?

MPs serve the public and the public should be able to expect them to speak and bah as mature, responsible adults. They should know and have the skills to maintain appropriate communications orally and on line. Perhaps guidelines on 'appropriate communications in political discourse' might assist those who are by nature more aggressive, pugnacious and argumentative? Zia Yusef springs to mind as someone in that context but he's not a serving MP.

UK Political discourse in my view has become more aggressive and divided, driven by contentious issues, e.g. (not exhaustive!) immigration, climate change and 'culture wars'. Increasingly aggressive and divisive rhetoric in politics and social media has normalised toxic debate and hostility towards public figures. AW was a prominent public figure for example but not a serving MP.

We'd be better trying to find a way for serving politicians to find a way to debate such contentious issues without aggressive rhetoric in my view.

On Farage turning down state funded security, claiming it was "inadequate' seems to be to be the behaviour of someone self entitled, divisive, seeking self publicity rather misguided ( why not simply top up to desired levels?) and self sabotaging. Perhaps attitudes like that contribute to the political discourse paradigm shift?

Great post! I agree with it wholeheartedly!

Fair enough.

My view is that continuing to provide state funded security to all MPs who leave office until the day they die is logistically problematic, unaffordable, not viable and would adversely divert already constrained public funds from other priority areas

Thats was in answer to fancythat 11.31

LemonJam

Fair enough.

My view is that continuing to provide state funded security to all MPs who leave office until the day they die is logistically problematic, unaffordable, not viable and would adversely divert already constrained public funds from other priority areas

I agree, thought also think it would be good if it was possible.